booktv guests and viewers. watch video and get up-to-date information on events. facebook.com/booktv. >> here's some of the latest headlines about the publishing industry over the past week. for a complete list go to

yale.edu. >> book expo america's announced their selection for 2013.

>> stay up-to-date by liking us on facebook, facebook.com/booktv, or followers on twitter at the booktv. you can also visit our website, booktv.org and click on news about books. >> up next on booktv, "after words" with lillian cunningham. this week, moises naim and his latest book, "the end of power." he argues that power no longer lives with leaders of strong stable governments over the heads of large corporations. the former venezuelan minister says the potential for widespread of people is greater today than ever before. the program is about one hour. >> host: it is my pleasure to introduce moises naim for this episode of "after words."

you are a noted columnist on international economics and globalization. you are also i a scholar at the carnegie endowment for international peace and formerly editor of "foreign policy" magazine. and former trade minister of venezuela. so all that said, you have also now written a new book called "the end of power" and that's a we're here to talk about today. so let's start at the beginning. which i think is how did you come to write this book and how did all of those various expenses in form what went into this? >> guest: delighted to be here and thank you. in the introduction you encapsulated many of, by doing all those things as you mentioned, i arrived at -- about what was going on with power. the all know the power is

shifting from west to east, from north to south, from very big companies to startups come from people in presidential palaces to people industry. we know that's happening in the world. that's nothing new. but i detected that there was something more profound happening to power, the power was experiencing a mutation. that has to do with power was buying much less than it used to in the past. that people with power could do less with it. that doesn't mean that they're not very powerful. the pope and head of the pentagon, the president of china or russia or the united states are very powerful people but they can do less. they are more constrained in what they can do. and, therefore, i started looking at that. it also coincided with a period -- i have been editor of "foreign policy" magazine as you said for 14 years, and so i was trying to distill what did i learn in those 14 years, what are the trends that came into my

mind as i was trying to summarize that experience. >> host: so i don't doubt for a moment and why don't you tell me a bit more about how you define power. i think the definition the layout in the book is central to your thesis and how it's declining and different from how we talk about power conversationally today. >> guest: right. and as you know, power has been discussed since signing memorial. has many definitions, and they can get complex. they can develop that idea and it has become very complex. for the book, for the conversation, it's enough to say that power is the ability of one actor to make others do or stop doing something. and influencing, power and influence are also, if they are related and influence in the book. i use influence as ability to

change the perception of situation in order to mock people in terms of moving in a certain direction or stop doing something, and power just creating incentives both sticks and carrots in order get people to behave in a certain way. house of representatives and so how exactly is a declining? because i think if you ask a lot of people today they would say okay, maybe there are new ceos of the top of organizations but they are still making enormous paychecks and wield a lot of power. and we see more and more countries seem to be emerging as strong players on the global stage. so how is that not just as shift and a redistribution of power? how is what we're witnessing actually a declines because each one of the players you mentioned well-paid ceos, heads of state, new countries that are coming and having a play in the geopolitics of arena and have

more say than before. all of these players have power but they have less power than before. they can do less with it than their predecessors could do. take any one of those and you will see that they are more constrained. think about the ceos of the banks after the financial crisis they were just a few banks that came on top. they where the banks that navigated through the crisis and bought all the banks and became, their ceos became a top leaders and the financial sector. but many of those today, just a few years later, have lost their job. others are quite constrained to others have been implicated in scandals that have greatly limited their ability to do things. and as i said, others are out of a job. the well-paid ceos that continue to be extremely

well-paid have shorter tenure stick it is very slippery at the top, both in the corporate world, in politics and in almost all other urban. it's very hard to say -- to stay on top for a long time. there'the statistical evidence e book about all of these things. >> host: and so there's that scientific principle that mass is neither treated or destroyed, it's just transferred. so you wouldn't say that applies to power as well? >> guest: no. all i say, again, i would never deny that power continues to exist. the power that is some very important player to vladimir putin is a very important powerful player. but vladimir putin today has more constrained than flattered by putting himself just 10 years ago, five years ago. and so power is better but power is easier to get, harder to use and far easier to lose. >> host: what's driving this

decline? >> guest: the common wisdom about this is that the main driver behind the motion of power, more fleeting has become is the internet. and social. and twitter and facebook and all that. we have seen that in the extreme, presumably and many other aspects. i of course don't deny that. that's the important. the internet is a very powerful transformation or tool that is altering the way power is an acquired and used and deployed. but there are other things going on. the internet very often is just a tool that new realities have made more important. i'm thinking, for example, of the increase in the size of the middle class around the world. it is a very important restructuring of social structure, of social economic

distribution's, both negative and positive in rich countries, the middle-class is embattled, shrinking. in poor countries its expanding very rapidly. and so all that is driving, is one of the factors that is driving the issues of power. and then i talk in the book about three important revolutions. >> host: you want to talk about more about those? you have the mentality revolution, mobility and more. >> guest: the more revolution if we just have more everything. more guns, more guns, more revenue. there is more wealth. there is more trade. there is more contagious. there's more everything. >> host: more people. >> guest: more people important to more countries and more political parties and more ideas. there's more of everything. if you have more of everything you try to retain power, it's

more publicly. it's much easier to wield power and keep control over, when there's not so much of everything. then when there is this explosion of everything. so that's the first thing. the second revolution, the more revolution, the second revolution is -- [inaudible] internet, cell phones, socially but the social migration is also played and the constant movement of ideas, people, money, goods, services and that mobility then combines with more. so not only have more much of that more movement. and, therefore, makes it harder to control. and thirdly, the one you mentioned first is the mentality revolution, is that all of the trends more accurate in general. more information, changes in the way people think. the way in which authority is

treated. the way in which people relate to elders, the customs has changed. >> hostchanged. and so the first revolution, the more revolution undermines, overwhelms, sorry, the barriers. just too much. more overwhelms. the mentality, mobility of revolution circumvents the barriers that she was a powerful from rivals. have the mentality undermines. so those are three baskets of a series of factors, which one of them that either overwhelms, circumvents our undermines the barriers that about the powerful to stay in power. >> host: so let's maybe take the arab spring as an example. because as you mentioned, a lot

of people have focus on the role social media has played, programs like twitter and facebook tha and let community f activists sort of catalyze, change but, you dogma in the book in which he just talked about now are much bigger, you know, slower building but more important forces that work underneath that. so maybe if you could just take the arab spring as an example and talk about what's really going on there beneath the surface. >> guest: the problem -- the common wisdom was ever spent was driven by social meet with facebook and google and twitter. but you don't started in indonesia and we know the story. and small town in tunisia, a street vendor, a food vendor just immolated himself. he self-immolated because was

fed up with abuses, local government was limiting his ability to make a living. but if you think about the media, you discover that tunisia was a country north africa that is the fast economic growth, that has the fastest expansion of the middle-class, that have the most stable economy, that had come it was the most homogeneous in terms of coming to, ethnicity and religion and other demographic characteristics, social characteristics. so it is was a very improbable place for this eruption to happen. and yet that's where it all started and then it spread. and what happened there was that it was essentially a story of a group of middle class that was rapidly expanding. educational opportunities have been expanding their very fast. you had a whole class of

professionals that couldn't find work. that the expectations were nurtured commune of, educational attainment and their knowledge and their information, that created a strong instability. of course, then when that happened, other things, other factors played into the explosion. through wikileaks they learned that their government was very corrupt as was his family. and that was all coming in, created a cauldron of upheaval that ended up in the overthrow of the government. that example then moved to egypt and to libya and elsewhere. and we know the story. there is a very interesting recent study by a think tank in washington called the u.s. in pursuit of peace.

they tracked the twitter traffic in these revolution. and they discovered that a lot of the twitter commentaries are taking place outside those countries but it was people like us tweeting about what was going on. that was the bulk of the exchanges in social media. because the people in tahrir square, they were not coming up, of course they were tweeting and facebook and google played a role, but they were all far more important shifts that were taking place inside that created the conditions that enabled the twitterers and facebook and the social media to play the role they did. >> host: so, given all this come what do you see as an implication for leaders today? not just the arab leaders, but if you look across from heads of state the heads of business, military as another example you give in the book. y., and income if you set up a

talk at a big institution today, i mean, what would you be thinking about doing? >> guest: have a vision. look at the periphery. have a bigger scope and look, your competitor will come from places that you cannot even imagine. if you are -- there's a difference between -- specialize in good at what you do that requires a dog attention to that highly specific, highly complete set of things that make your company or organization successful. it's very difficult to then start looking sideways or behind you, or up or down to see where is it coming? where the challenge is to your position is coming. so the first is to pay attention to the balance between how specialize and can do you have to be to your core competencies

and you seem to do well but at the same time do not neglect the forces that are behind you or around you. that can surprise you. so that's one. and the second is just be aware that people like you lose their job very often. >> host: so do you think that could leadership looks different today, or tomorrow, from what it looks like 10 years ago? >> guest: i think so i think there's a lot of evidence. in your own work i think you've highlighted that leaders now are leading by just sheer force of authority and just trying to get things done because i say so. it's not that effective anymore. you are getting with employees and competitors and clients and customers and suppliers that are far more reactive than -- and

less prone to be accepting, the accepting of borders. so hierarchy and authority have declined as main features of how to deploy power in organizations. >> host: and what about comic can you think of specific leaders they would you would say, yeah, you look across the country, across the world, you think they're getting it right? or others that you could point to and say, they really are stuck in an old mode? >> guest: the classic example i think, almost has become a cliché but it deserves to be repeated is nelson mandela. this is someone wind was three decades of imprisonment, the first reaction, his first instinct is not to use rage,

revenge to fuel his followers. but to calm his followers and to try to have a view that was inclusive, that was not based on, you know, the use of force. and he ended up being very powerful and very influential in a very, very solid, interesting way. >> host: and what do you think about within organizations themselves? have you seen anything about, you know, mostly when were talking about business leaders being effective we're talking about communicable within the industry that there in and among other players how at captiva are they or not. but have you seen anything, any trends within the organization of other dismal are less expected at managing the people

who work for him or for her? is that dynamic changing at all? >> guest: it is a broad question. it is sector specific. in some sectors, here's a have a steel mill. the culture there is far more determined by technology, by the distribution channels, by the structure of the business. that means you have a start up somewhere. just compare instagram, that is this web-based topography -- photography site becomes just bought for a billion dollars. and it has a few years, not employed. compare that with kodak that just went bankrupt. got some point codec was almost a monopoly on film and photographic equipment. just compare the difference between the vehicle that went down to this newcomer. so just imagine how different is

the culture, how different are the ways of behaving and have different is i'm sure the way with this respected fields to the customers and competitors who thought ahead and use of technology, and capital. >> host: and going back to your nelson mandela example, consensus and coalition building, you talk but in the book as well as being really important aspects right now for being able to in a world where power is declining, to actually be able to get something done. could you elaborate a little more on the role increasingly important role that something like coalition building place today? >> guest: this. and that's a very important aspect of the conversation and the implications of what i'm saying there. i mentioned that there's

something like, i mean, in which there is a lot to celebrate in the decay of power and where power is now shifting and it's spreading and more actors are coming into play, and jim less dictators. you have less monopolies. you have less authoritarian ways of doing things. so there's a lot to celebrate. and so when you move and that inserted curve, you go up in terms of benefit to society. you know, the intended -- dk of power and the x. axis and then benefits to society in the vertical. so you move up. the more you move towards more dissemination and power, the better it is for society because you move away from monopolies and concentration and all that. and then to get a point in which

more of that dispersion, more of that power becomes negative. it starts sloping down. and why? because of what you said. imagine a situation in which you can do anything -- you can't do anything unless you have politicians and had to consult everyone, and everyone than has the power. no one really has any power to propose anything new. and, therefore, you end up with -- and we can see it in governments around the world, and politics aroun around the w. and some companies and which are just addition vision of power, different shareholders and management, management groups in which nothing gets done, or nothing gets done with the quality of decisions because you don't really have someone that can make things happen. i don't worry as much about that as i worry when that happens in government. we are seeing it here in

washington. how difficult it is to make decisions that are quite obvious. talking about decisions that we are even going to stop the u.s. government from working, or imposing very, very negative or automatic cuts that are quite irrational. yet everybody knows that that shouldn't happen and you see the difficulty of making the right decisions. and i think that's because we are overdosing on checks and balances. we have just developed this wide array of checks and balances that make decisions, they postpone decisions. they kick the can down the road. the decisions are diluted. you will find the minimum common denominator that pleases everyone but doesn't solve the problem. you find the decisions really are ineffective and that create the illusion of decision-making but, in fact, not much is

happening. >> host: so i love that idea. i mean, hate that idea, but overloaded with checks and balances. i dislike to just stay on congress for a moment, which you know, capitol hill is just a few blocks away from your, you know, once the seat of so much symbolic power, but then if you look at the sort of definition you did of what it means that power, which means to get something done, it seems like one of the most powerless institutions we have right now. so, what's going on there with that dynamic and how much of the dysfunction that we're seeing in congress is attributed to these deeper systemic, you know, ties in the decline of power? and how much of it is just, we don't have great people on the hill right now? >> guest: right. no, i think you put your finger on the essence of that story.

and i do believe in what we see now in the u.s. congress is a manifestation of the revolutions and many of the forces that i discuss in the book. essentially we have these organizations that is very powerful, that is unable to get anything done. anytime the american who are recognizing that, the level of support and respect for the u.s. congress all time lows. and so it has a lot to do in the book i discuss it, and i make it one of the centerpieces on my concluding chapter. it has a lot to do with trust. and the loss of trust. so if you don't have, if you have these foster trust, then you feel the place with checks and balances and control a century to make it impossible to take an initiatives that are quite significant without including everybody else to

monitor, scrutinize, limit, constrained by the powerful are doing. and in turn i also make a big deal out of the decline, of the competitiveness of political parties. >> host: do you want to return to that? but first i'm curious if you think if, if we elected better leaders right now and put them in congress, do you think we would see it function better or something, something at a deeper level needs to change? >> guest: yeah, i am always suspicious of hoping or looking for a proverbial mythical good leader. you know, the notion that things will get solved if we only had better people. we have the people that the american people elected. and that is been the case for a while. so i think there is a more powerful force at work there is

a structure incentives that defines who gets interested in this, who gets the call. who wants to run for congress, who wants to be a senator or a congressperson. and then what it takes to get elected. those are forces that are far more powerful, and i defined it, the kind of leaders that we end up getting in congress. so rather than looking or hoping that we can get good leaders out of some magical process, i would look at the structure of incentives that determines who gets interested, who's willing to spend his or her life in congress, and what does it take for the person once he or she decides to run, to really make it. ..

and we have a bunch of them around and you see them resurfacing. you see them becoming embraced by people, voted either peep hole. so i think it is important to create institutions and processes that will limit that. that takes me to my point about

political party. what is happening, the decline of parties, lack of competitiveness and i would explain what i mean by lack of competitiveness. it's important in building trust in limiting insulin and limiting the gridlock we have. >> what do you mean by lack of competitiveness? do you mean we should have more parties? >> we need better parodies. political parties need to learn from organizations. imagine where in front of a group of 20-year-olds and we asked them, i am launching a nongovernmental organization that is going to try to see the butterfly in indonesia is in danger of extinction. he's your hand those of you that would like to help me in saving that butterflies in indonesia.

he will find among 20-year-old and ordered bare chested in doing that. and that's the same group who wants to join me in a political party? who wants to join the republican party or democratic party? you will see far fewer will be willing to volunteer time and upgrades and passions in joining a political party and that's very bad. political parties need to be more attractive to young people and professionals because political parties ids incident the idea you can have democracy without political party is a bad idea. >> were going to take a short rate could be right back.

>> you saying your book as well that political parties need to learn something from the occupied movement and even from al qaeda. what exactly do you mean by that? what should they be taking? >> think about how effective al qaeda has been in recruiting young people. i'm not suggesting political parties have to become colds or the suicidal murderers. what i'm saying is why today have? what does al qaeda have that can be at least used to provoke some new thinking about how to

recruit, motivate young leaders and followers. the same happened with the occupied movement. he saw the very large of young people around the world. some places you have consequences than others was just an expression of anger and anxiety and disappointment, but the fact of the matter is a lot of disinterested on political people became highly politicized. i think there was something they are a political parties that want to be more competitive, want to a chart and retain young readers, young people are to learn from those examples. again, it has to do with the fact that the last decade has been horrible for political parties around the world in very

good for young organizations. >> host: how powerful do you think the position of u.s. president is today? guesser there is no doubt is very powerful. it is one of the most powerful places in the world. all i would say on the basis of the research of the book is its less powerful than it used to be. there was a recent interview with president obama come in which he explains he was reading the story president reagan that decided to build a pool somewhere in the white house. president obama reflected how difficult would that become today, not just with the opposition and all the parties, but the scrutiny of the media and would become an important

national debate and would distract from other things. so that was an example of how more for constrained this very powerful president is. the range of things they can do on their own is shrinking. >> host: we hear a lot today about is china going to be the next superpower, is it overtaking the united states? you point out that's really not the type of conversation we should be having only talk about power. what is the ec is fundamentally unhelpful about that way of thinking? >> that's what i call the elevator approach. who's up, who's down. it also happens that the companies if you center back,

you decide on the fact china is a very poor country that has very, very important problems and challenges that are hard to tackle. you'd lose sight of the fact at the power the chinese leadership is a more constrained now. if you just think about the power that leaders like mao houde or some other successors,, the leadership in china that launched a massive opening of china and economic reform in china, that brought china to the global economy. i don't know that the current leaders can have the same ambition because they know they are far more constrained. again, not saying is they can do less today that professors were able to do.

>> host: let's return to al qaeda and the topic of the military and some of the big changes that were seen in way that were certified today. right now there's a conversation about cutting the defense budget which is a moment and how we invest in our power hold. what takes place now a country like the united states has relied on the state, hierarchical institution that is the u.s. military for so long, what could or should it look like five years from now, 10 years from now?

>> guest: i have a whole chapter. this started a small example. these are people with very, very primitive guns and they go out and hijack some of the largest ships in the world. the international community has reacted to that. by deploying the most influential monitor in terms of technologies. you have the ukrainians in the european unions, which the japanese come united states, russians, everyone is trying to stop the power and they have not

been able to do it. so that example shows you when we're talking about what has become common which is symmetrical war you have groups that is far less powerful and asymmetrical way, the most powerful is an example of that. and the signature in the symmetric war is far more common. a lot of words no longer fought between armies that represent they have different combatants and technology there is never to

defeat and they can get away with doing what they want to do and they are constraining the option the large army highs and in iraq indisposition devices that created the largest sellers of casualties were the united states military in most places. they're billions of dollars some progress was made that were still not there. what are the rules that debate

is importuned. drums are becoming everyone can have the drone. you have built your soldier is now and a lot of armies, a lot of individuals around the world know -- they are now very inexpensive. that is how military technology is becoming far more available around the world, not only to military and to terrorists, insurgents and combatants. the military may is they are constrained as they sat by rules, rules of war that they're now all these players emerging who don't sort of restocked or care about those rules of war.

>> that's part of the century. you not only have the signature he and the types of weapons and weapon systems. you also have symmetry terms of the league of frameworks by which you abide in order to conduct the work. >> host: if your incoming secretary of defense, what would you be looking out for how to make a big institution like the u.s. military adapt to all these changes were seen? >> guest: but is very striking is how much thinking there is in the u.s. military about transformation. i've been talking to the u.s. military planners and senior officers and is quite impressive the quality of their thinking, how they know everything. it's not a problem of lack of

ideas. it's another example. it is very, very hard to convert ideas about how to make the american military more nimble, less expensive, while at the same time retaining their ability to protect the homeland. so those ideas that they are. what is not there is the power to execute them. host does it mean about the military, you've mentioned something that seemed troubling and other things that seem like access and improvements. so what is at stake really? whatever that cannot in terms of obesity and to gain and what we stand to lose because of this seismic shift? >> guest: my biggest worry about what i described is not a

national level and i described make dinner about countries like the u.s. that are reducing checks and balances to the point of whichever can beat an initiative and no one can impose a view. but then the most striking and worry someone is when you take that at the global level. the inability of international community to make decisions. what we now have is a situation in which globalization of countries and interdependence and all that's going on in terms of integration, international integration of economy, society and so on, even individual is creating a great need for collective decision-making that too sends more international and be on one border.

and they need created by globalization to deal with problems that no country could tackle alone in the ability of the international community to work together with responses to the problem. >> host: let's take as an example climate change and the failed copenhagen found that, where we saw firsthand the inability for countries to calm to some sort of consensus to work together tricky bit pressing global issues. you know, what would help eyes push past those challenges? >> guest: in the book, i proposed an idea that instead of multilateral, in which you try

to get 192 countries to agree on some name that can make a dent of the problem, in order to get that, you have to get the common denominator and you have a variety of views and nothing happens as you said. copenhagen was an example. but what if you bring 10, 20 or 15, small number of the biggest players, both in terms of causing the problem and also being part of the solution and try to get an agreement among those. and climate change, that number that can create a huge change in the world is the united states and china. so instead of 192 countries, why not have two countries reached an agreement on how to move forward, which is the united states and china and hopefully bring brazil and south africa

and indonesia of the world and see if the smaller number of countries can get things moving. that will be denounced as antidemocratic and exclusionary. countries that are not invited to the table would say why are you deciding without including me? and they're right. when we include everyone, nothing happens. so if i have to choose -- they are both bad, i'd rather have one bad thickest part of the solution going dan rather having a highly democratic system in which every single country has a vote. even a small island of 100,000 inhabitants has the same boat as the united states and nothing

happens. i would love to have an inclusionary system, because all of these global problems are becoming crises. >> let's say everyone got on board with that idea. how would that play out? who could put forward an idea like that it says sorry, we care about you, but you're not on the list of people who get to be involved in the decision. >> guest: that's issue specific. the number of countries you an invite to do with climate change are different than the tapes of countries he would invite to the global pandemics are the global financial crisis or immigration and migration flows or intellectual property. there will be some countries at

a lot of these tables, but the problems are defined by different types of country. so it just takes for some governments, not just the government, but the population of the country to demand that governments are doing something. politicians are very, very sensitive to the signal that the voters stand. so nothing is going to happen until the kitchen tables and homes around the world, citizens start demanding action to deal more effectively with these global problems. >> host: that i think brings us back to trust, which you mentioned earlier and what you mention your book as one path forward to helping us empower

some institutions, some groups over others freely. but i guess, why is tried the linchpin they're? why's that so important to capture for going to sign away and not just dissolve into a million checks and balances that lead to inaction? >> guest: it means trusting your leaders to do the right thing and writing a blank check. you don't write a blank check to someone you don't trust them in order to trust them you need to know them. in order to know them come unique to interact with them to be aware of the dilemmas. one of the problems they bring back a political party, where a nongovernmental organization or social group can center one

issue and one issue alone. my example as you can afford if you are part of the group, just to worry about what's happening. but if you're in a political party, you have to have opinions about economic policy and agriculture and preschool in the use of drugs. political parties are important training places for leaders. especially for young people. that israel so you can create the knowledge of all the issues. you can bring people to understand two.choose a horrible one and a government you have to choose even worse one. does need to be better understood in unique to have more trust that is not making

everyone happy is not by choice. but because there are much worse here in the united states were now confronted with those decisions in which you need to cut the size of government and the increased taxes were talking about will be making very terrible choices between an even worse on and that is where the public will be very confused by this terrible simplifier's, the demagogues that are trying to confuse the issues. host scott tyson average citizen in his conference said, how do you know who to pitcher chastain, especially with those very media and they are such a proliferation of information and with that, misinformation that

making this decision is not getting any easier for citizens. >> guest: there is not a silver bullet, but there is a need for people to make their homework more, get better educated. we have too much information and it's very confusing and hard to know who is saying the right thing. but if you do your homework, you will find as you can trust that don't have a vested interest, but are looking for a more object state on the situation that can guide you. the other thing has become our act to be sitting at home and complain were not going to solve anything. people need to become more activated and participatory and

policies and getting engaged. they will understand hitter travis and they will understand the policy options ahead of us. >> host: on the other side, for the tourists looking to repair or build that trust, any advice for them on how to do that? >> guest: i don't have any silver bullet about that. what we know today is transparency becomes very important and honesty becomes even more important. it is always important, but now there are many, many reasons why those in power are scrutinized to levels that have no precedence and the leaders that believe they can get away is

going to be hard, even though in recent years we've seen the terrible simplifier's have gained a lot of power. >> guest: hollister were getting towards the end. your book is called "the end of power" and you've described estrogenic. from power concentrated among a few big institutions to at the very end of the power dissolution, a site that entropy or anarchy of the get out the way they are. where on that spectrum do you think we are right now? >> host: and the political system we are not there in the limited decisions that can make that we desperately need to move the needle back to a situation where government are empowered

to make decisions that are needed. but as i said before, what is really, really bad is that the global level, where we have a huge need for these expanding list of problems that will not be solved by acting alone, even a superpower they require connected actions were not getting a because the governments that have to make those compromises are limited, constrained. so building that power to make decisions is the most urgent task at hand. >> host: it has been a pleasure talking to you. the book is "the end of power" and i wish you all the best. dexter thank you very much for your very good conversation.

>> i was trained to come up with which authors are interviews with journalists, public policy makers, legislators and others familiar with material.

..